Ex Parte Lassota

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2019

12248130 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/248,130 10/09/2008
7590 02/22/2019
JAMES W. POTTHAST
POTTHAST & AS SOCIA TES
10606 DEERPATH ROAD
WOODSTOCK, IL 60098
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zbigniew G. Lassota
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
FET-69 9277
EXAMINER
ALEXANDER, REGINALD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2019 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZBIGNIEW G. LASSOTA
Appeal2018-002195
Application 12/248, 130 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 15, and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, Food Equipment Technologies Company, Inc. is
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appellant did not number the
Appeal Brief' s pages, but we number the page with the heading "APPEAL
BRIEF" as page 1, and consecutively number the subsequent pages.
Appeal2018-002195
Application 12/248, 130
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a housing for a
beverage brewer. Spec. 2. Claim 4 is the sole independent claim on appeal.
Below, we reproduce claim 4 as representative of the appealed claims.
4. In a beverage brewer for passing hot water though a
beverage ingredient to make a freshly brewed beverage, a brewer
housing, comprising:
a lower housing section made from a single work piece of
resilient, flexible, thin-walled, stainless steel that has been bent
to form
a pair of parallel, planar side walls spaced apart by
a preselected distance,
a front wall in which the curved front wall is
arcuately curved for the entire preselected distance between the
pair of planer sidewalls and
a pair of aligned inwardly extending, back, end wall
sections extending towards each other by a substantial amount
but separated by a space defining an access panel opening; and
an upper housing section mounted to the top of the lower
housing section made from another single, thin-walled stainless
steel, resilient work piece that is bent to form a pair of planer side
walls spaced apart by the preselected distance,
a front wall bent into a stressed curved state in
which the curved front wall is arcuately curved for the entire
preselected distance between the pair of parallel side walls, and
a pair of inwardly extending, back, end walls joined
together by a weld joint, said weld joint holding2 the curved wall
in a stressed state, said stressed state of the curved front wall of
the upper housing section enhancing the lateral rigidity and
structural integrity of the upper housing section.
2 We omit the phrase "[at juncture 59]," because it appears, based on our
review of the record, that the claim does not include this recitation.
2
Appeal2018-002195
Application 12/248, 130
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rolfes (US 5,875,703, iss. Mar. 2, 1999), Long et al.
(US 6,739,241 B2, iss. May 25, 2004) (hereinafter "Long"), and Miyamoto
et al. (US 5,277,357, iss. Jan. 11, 1994) (hereinafter "Miyamoto").
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 4, the Examiner relies on Long to
disclose the claimed "front curved wall bent into a stressed state, wherein the
curved front wall is curved for the entire distance between the pair of planer
sidewalls." Final Act. 2, 3. The Examiner also finds "the bending of metal,
by any means, would result in the stressing of the metal." Answer 4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection is in error, because there is no
"suggestion [in Long] that any of the wall[s] [is] in a stressed state." Appeal
Br. 11. See also Reply Br. 3 ("The curved walls of Long ... are all shown
in a curved configuration without the need for their opposite ends being
secured to each other[,] which would be required if the curved walls were in
a state of stress.").
Based on our review of the record, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection. The Examiner does not support adequately that any of Long's
walls are in a stressed state, or even are formed by bending. More
specifically, it is not sufficient for the Examiner to show that Long discloses
a curved wall, such as heat sink 100 or wrap assembly 32. See Answer 3--4.
This is because it is conceivable one may form a curved wall, without
bending, such that the wall is not in a stressed state.
3
Appeal2018-002195
Application 12/248, 130
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 4. Further, we do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 15 and 16, which the Examiner rejects with claim 4, for
the same reasons we do not sustain the independent claim's rejection.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 4, 15,
and 16.
REVERSED
4